Meeting documents

Application Proposal: Alterations to existing dormer window, formation of additional dormer window to front elevation and the erection of car port.

(Councillor Nigel Mermagen, having earlier declared a personal and prejudicial interest, left the room during consideration of this item).

The Planning Assistant introduced the report with the aid of slides and photographs and summarised the details of the application as set in the agenda report.  She advised that two further letters of objection had been received, citing the detrimental effect upon the area and the precedence which it would set in a conservation area.  The key considerations were visual amenity, impact on conservation area, highway safety and residential amenity and her recommendation was to grant permission subject to conditions.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Assistant and the Area Lead Planning Officer confirmed that:-

·         No additional fences or walls were permitted in the Close under the original planning permission. 

·         Building Regulations would not be required to carry out the work.

·         The Conservation Area pre-dated the building of the Close.

·         The proposal would still be acceptable in planning terms if it was within the designated Conservation Area.

The Committee were then addressed by Mr J Stevens and Mr J Chance in objection to the application.  Their comments included:-

·         The 41 listed monuments in the village were under threat from the principle of the development.

·         The proposal would not solve the issue that the existing garage was too small.  The existing garage could be extended or remodelled instead.

·         The proposed car port would be a substantial structure with an infilled gable.

·         The SSDC design guide said that garages and car ports should be 1m back from the front of a property. 

·         The car port could be fenced in and used for other purposes.

The Committee were then addressed by Mr M Taylor, Agent for the applicant.  His comments included:-

·         The existing front elevation of the property lacked design and balance and the existing dormer window was out of balance.

·         The two proposed dormer windows were within ratio and would be constructed using bespoke materials.  To prevent any overlooking, they could be glazed with obscure glass.

·         The car port would be a bespoke architectural feature built with oak posts and a slate roof and would enhance the property.

The Ward Member, Councillor Sue Osborne, said that no-one had any issue with the two dormer windows but the car port was a problem in the small cul-de-sac.  She said if the Committee were minded to support the application then there should be no more gates or enclosure permitted around the car port. 

During discussion, varying views were expressed.  Some Members felt the dormer windows were an improvement in the Close and there were no valid reasons to refuse the application whereas others felt the proposal set a precedent in a Conservation Area and the strength of local opposition should be taken into account.  It was proposed and seconded to approve the application, subject to an additional condition to ensure that the car port would not be enclosed by any fence, wall or structure without express planning permission, and, on being put to the vote, was carried (voting: 6 in favour, 1 against, 2 abstentions).

(voting: 6 in favour, 1 against, 2 abstentions)